RESEARCH PAPERS

COMPARISON OF RESPONSE REDUCTION FACTOR

WITH NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CODES

By

S. ELAVENIL * SANDRA S FERNANDEZ **

* Professor, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University, Chennai, India.
** PG Scholar, School of Mechanical and Building Sciences, VIT University, Chennai, India.

Date Received: 10/10/2017 Date Revised: 04/12/2017 Date Accepted: 11/12/2017

ABSTRACT
Seismic design is followed in different countries on force based design with a final check on displacement. Linear elastic
analysis is performed and the comparison of Response Reduction factor is calculated based on the National and
International codes. Response reduction factor reflects the capability of structure to dissipate energy through inelastic
behavior which accounts for the damping and ductility requirement. Building codes define R-factor based on type of
structural system, material configuration, and detailing. Codes also differ in calculation of drift and allowable drift limit.
R-factor from many developing countries are obtained from well developed countries which makes them more
vulnerable towards earthquake and thus provides a false representation and thereafter it turns to be unrealistic. A
parametric study involves modeling a dual system in ETABS and response spectrum analysis is carried out. This paper
focuses on study of variation of base shear with R factors and its effect on membrane forces considered in design of
members. A comparison of results is made using building codes IS 1893 and ASCE 7-10. The performance of building is
verified using displacement modified approach.
Keywords: Response Reduction Factor, Drift , Building Codes, Elastic Analysis, Ductility, Base Shear.

INTRODUCTION
A structure during its lifetime faces less probability of
experiencing severe earthquake. But when it is put to test
the chances of collapse can be minimized, if it is capable
of responding in elastic range. This calls for expensive
designs and materials for constructing an earthquake
resistant structure. The main philosophy of earthquake
design is to resist earthquake ground motion without
collapse even though minor structural or non-structural
damages are permitted which can be later retrofitted.
Conventional seismic design is force based which is
suitable for actions that is permanently applied on
members. In seismic design inelastic deformation to some
extent to some level can absorb certain amount of energy
leading to the concept of response modification factor.
Since the R factor is found out for the over strength and
energy absorption, the buildings in seismic regions are
designed for much less base shear which keeps the
structure in elastic range at the time of severe ground
shaking. Seismic code specifies R value based on structural
type and detailing which turns out to be unrealistic due to
scarcity of research. The structures cannot be designed for
the actual value of earthquake intensity as the cost of
construction will be too high. The actual intensity of
earthquake is reduced by a factor called response
reduction factor R was discussed by Toby and Kottuppillil
(2015).
Further other provisions also indirectly govern the seismic
performance. One method of evaluating the seismic
performance is by calculation of drifts which depends on
stiffness of RC members. Wilson and Elavenil (2015) used
time history analysis in the seismic design of a fifteen storied
commercial building which is subjected to an earthquake
load histogram as in the case of Bhuj earthquake in Gujarat

i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l December 2017 - February 2018

No. 4 l 23
 RESEARCH PAPERS

in 2001. The response spectrum is determined with SAP comparison report are made to establish the correct
2000 software and designed. parameter of R.
The procedure of estimating drift varies with codes. Hence it 2. Ductility Reduction and Over Strength Factors
is necessary for design for different level of damages. The The load displacement curve for non-linear response of
computed response modification factors increased as the structure is assumed to be elasto plastic. The idealization of
number of stories decreased, and the mean value turned response is shown in Figure 1.
out to be larger than the value specified in the design code
The ductility reduction factor is a factor which is responsible
as discussed by Kim et al. (2016). Three verification
for elastic force demand to the maximum yield strength of
examples are presented and the results from static push-
the structure and hence it may be given. The inertial force
over analysis are compared with time-history results from
due to earthquake motion at which the RC structure starts
the simplified model. The results verify that the model is
to yield is much higher than unfactored base shear.
capable of performing non-linear response history analysis
When structure reaches the yielding stage its stiffness gets
on regular high rise buildings was discussed by Wilkinson
reduced, but still it will be able to carry the load which is due
and Hiley (2006).
to the structural overstrength that results from the internal
Sang-Dae-Kim et al. introduced Modified Dynamic
force distribution of material, higher material strength, strain
Inelastic Analysis (MODIA) to capture a distribution
hardening properties member over sizes, and
proportional to changing mode shapes affected by the
reinforcement detailing. Besides the common analysis the
change of stiffness. In this method, as a structure enters into
effect of secondary stiffening and strengthening effect
the inelastic range, the distribution of lateral forces is
associated with three dimensional action is neglected.
changed according to the mode shapes of structure (Kim,
The ductility reduction factor takes advantage of energy
et al., 1999).
dissipating capacity of properly designed as well as
Wilkinson and Hiley (2004) investigated three generic
detailed structures and depends upon the global ductility
frames that are subjected to seven earthquake excitations.
demand on structure. In earthquake engineering the main
Results were obtained for both the plastic limit (i.e. where all
aim is to control type of location and extent of damage
beams remain within their plastic range) and the collapse
which is accomplished to an extent with proper detailing.
limit (where all beams exceed their ultimate capacity) and
Figure 1 depicts the elastic and inelastic response and the
are presented in terms of number of storeys and ductility.
concept of equal energy is adopted to reduce the design
The results show that significant reserve capacity is
force from Ve to Vd.
achievable even in structures with minimal ductility.
Ductility Reduction factor Rµ = Ve / Vd
1. Methodology
The architectural design and the alignment of the structural
elements are done from Structural Engineering point of
view and the model is created in the Internationally rated
software ETABS. The method of calculation of base shear
due to Earthquake loading is more or less the same in
ASCE-10, IS 1893, and UBC-97. All the codes consider the
earthquake force as a lateral force. The forces are
determined on the basis of a base shear by Equivalent
Lateral Force procedure. The analysis is performed with
linear static nature of the loads. The impact of base shear
on axial and flexural members are studied. Comparative
study on the results are obtained. The assessment and the Figure 1. Force Response System of Elastic and Inelastic Systems

24 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l

No. 4 l
December 2017 - February 2018
 RESEARCH PAPERS

Overstrength factor Ω = Vy / V d the design base shear coefficients for buildings are
where, Ve is the max base shear coefficient, if the structure mentioned for different codes.
remains elastic. Vd is unfactored design base shear Design base shear co-efficient are specified in ASCE and IS
coefficient, and Vy is the base shear coefficient. 1893. The minimum design base shear coefficient which
3. Building Ductility Classification and Response depends on the ductility class and PGA are given in ASCE 7.
Reduction Factors 4.1 IS 1893 (Part 1): 2002
For dual system, the moment resisting frames shall be VB = Ah*W as per Clause 7.5.3 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002
capable of resisting twenty five percent of the design Ah = (Z/2* I/R* Sa/g) as per Clause 6.4.2 of IS 1893 (Part
seismic forces. The total seismic resistance should be 1):2002.
provided by the combination of the moment resistant
For medium soil, (Sa/g) =1.36/ Ta as per Clause 6.4.5 of IS
frames and moment resisting frame like the shear walls or
1893 (Part 1):2002.
braced frames will be in proportional to their rigidities. As per
4.2 Fundamental Natural Period
Indian code there are three sub divisions for dual systems,
such as dual system with special moment resisting frame, 4.2.1 With Infill
intermediate moment resisting frame, and ordinary Ta = 0.09*h / sqrt (d) as per Clause 7.6.2 of IS 1893 (Part
moment resisting frame. As per ASCE provisions under dual 1):2002.
systems are divided into three types, such as: 4.2.2 Without infill:
·Dual system with special moment resistant frames Ta = 0.075*h^0.75 for RC frame building as per Clause
capable of resisting 25% of seismic forces, which is 7.6.1 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
further subdivided into special RCC shear walls and
The design base shear VB from the dynamic analysis shall
ordinary RCC shear walls.
be compared with base shear VB calculated using a
·Dual system with intermediate moment resistant fundamental period Ta, as given by empirical formula of
frames capable of resisting 25% of seismic forces, clause 7.6 of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002.
which is further subdivided into special RCC shear walls
4.3 ASCE 7-10
and ordinary RCC shear walls.
The base shear depends as per ASCE depends upon the
·Shear wall frame interactive system with ordinary
seismic response coefficient (Cs ) and the seismic weight of
moment resisting frames and ordinary RCC shear wall.
structure (W).
The guidelines are given in the seismic design codes and
V = W*Cs (1)
detailing of RC buildings for different ductility classes are
The seismic response coefficient shall be determined
also included. This generally consists of,
according to the equation,
·The capacity design provisions to achieve a hierarchy
SDS
of strength in order to avoid brittle failure modes. Cs = (2)
R
·General provision of special confining reinforcement Ie
(in the form of closely-spaced stirrups) at potential where, SDS - The design spectral response acceleration
plastic hinge locations. for short period range.

·Anchorage of beam longitudinal reinforcement into R - Response modification factor.

columns. Ie - Importance factor.
·Design of beam-column joints to avoid shear failure. 5. Control of Drift
4. Design Base Shear The inter storey drift controls the performance of structures
The ductility classes and the fundamental time period for as well as the non structural components of the buildings.

i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l December 2017 - February 2018

No. 4 l 25
 RESEARCH PAPERS

The secondary (P-D

) effects is the important parameters
which govern the member sizes mainly in case of tall
buildings. The drift modification factor depends on the
height of the tall buildings. The drift control limits are given in
IS1893. Table 1 gives the drift limits as per ASCE 7-10 for
occupancy category.
The drift limit for structures other than masonry shear wall
structures and masonry cantilever shear wall and other
structures are tabulated for the risk category.
6. Building Modelling
It is very important to develop a mathematical model on
which non-linear/linear, dynamic/static analysis is
performed. The first part of this section gives a summary of
various parameters defining the mathematical models,
the basic geometry, and the assumptions of the selected
building considered for this study. Accurate modeling of
the nonlinear properties of various structural elements is
very important in nonlinear analysis. A detailed description
base shear decreases from 4608.2 KN to 2764.92 KN. As
per UBC code with increase in R value from 4.2 to 8.5 the
base shear varies from 14396.6 KN to 7113.61 KN. The
above base shear calculated is well within the maximum
and minimum provisions given by the UBC code. As per
ACI code with variation of R value from three to five the
base shear varies from 13414.31 KN to 5030.93 KN.
Model 2 represents an industrial building with composite
system. As per Indian code with increase in R value from
four to five base shear decreases from 1017.75 KN to
814.01 KN. As per UBC code with increase in R value from
4.2 to 6.5 the base shear varies from 3944.44 KN to 2548.71
KN. The above base shear calculated exceeds the
maximum provisions given by the UBC code. So the limiting
base shear is taken for design. As per ACI code with
variation of R value from three to eight the base shear varies
S. No. Structure Risk Category
I or II III IV

on the nonlinear modeling of RC frames is shown in Figures 1 Structures, other than masonry 0.025hxx 0.020hxx 0.015hxx
shear wall structures, 4 stories or
2, 3, and 4. less above the base, with
interior walls, partitions, ceilings
and exterior wall systems that
7. Results and Discussion have been designed to
accommodate the story drifts
Table 2 gives the variation of base shear with R-values for
2 Masonry cantilever shear 0.010hxx 0.010hxx 0.010hxx
the same model with different codes. Although in general wall structures
there is decrease in base shear values as per increase in R 3 Other masonry shear 0.007hxx 0.007hxx 0.007hxx
wall structures
values. 4 All other structures 0.020hxx 0.015hxx 0.010hxx

Model 1 depicts a high rise building with dual system. As

Table 1. Drift Limits as per ASCE 7-10 for Occupancy Category
per Indian code with increase in R value from three to five

Figure 2. Mathematical Model of Dual System (High Rise Building) (Model 1)

26 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l

No. 4 l
December 2017 - February 2018
RESEARCH PAPERS

Figure 3. Industrial Building with Composite System (Model 2)

Figure 4. Medium Rise Building with Dual System (Model 3)

Project IS 1893 UBC 1997 ASCE 7-10

T R Vb T R Vb Vmax Vmin T R Vb
3 4608.2 4.2 14396.6 37575.08 3 13414.3
Model 1 2.14 4 3456.16 1.394 6.5 9302.41 24279.3 6943.88 1.392 5 8049.5
5 2764.92 8.5 7113.61 18566.5 8 5030.9

3 424 4.2 1288.63 908.48 3 847.92

Model 2 .551 4 318 .595 6.5 832.66 587.02 .595 5 508.75
5 254.4 8.5 636.44 448.9 8 317.97

4 1017.75 4.2 3944.44 4400.51 3 4107.2

Model 3 .823 .376 823.21 .375 5 2464.68
5 814.01 6.5 2548.71 2843.4 6 2053.5
8 1106.02

Table 2. Variation of R Values with Base Shear

i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l December 2017 - February 2018

No. 4 l 27
 RESEARCH PAPERS

from 4107.15 KN to 1106.02 KN. References

Model 3 represents a medium rise building with dual
system. As per Indian code with increase in R value from
three to five base shear decreases from 424 KN to 254.4
KN. As UBC code with increase in R value from 4.2 to 8.5 the
base shear varies from 1288.65 KN to 636.44 KN. The
above base shear calculated is well within the maximum
and minimum provisions given by the UBC code. As per ACI
code with variation of R value from three to eight the base
shear varies from 847.92 KN to 317.97 KN.
From Table 2, it is observed that variation in base shear is not
much in case of ASCE 7-10 and UBC code, but there is
significant difference in base shear for the same models for
calculation with respect to IS 1893.
Conclusion
A comparative study of response reduction factor with base
shear has been made with IS 1893 and UBC 1997 and ASCE
7-10. Its seen that while estimating the base shear, there is not
much significant difference as per UBC 1997 and ASCE 7-10,
but considerable variation exists in base shear values
estimated using IS 1893. The drift for three models have been
found to satisfy the codal limits. Further this research about
importance of R factor can be extended into design like
calculation of membrane forces like its effect on torsion, axial
forces, moment, and shear force.
[1]. Kim, S. D., Hong, W. K., & Ju, Y. K. (1999). A modified
dynamic inelastic analysis of tall buildings considering
changes of dynamic characteristics. The Structural Design
of Tall Buildings, 8(1), 57-73.
[2]. Kim, J., Jun, Y., & Kang, H. (2016). Seismic behavior
factors of RC staggered wall buildings. International
Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 10(3), 355-
371.
[3]. Toby, T. & Kottuppillil, A. K. (2015). Evaluation of
Response Reduction Factor using Non Linear Analysis.
International Journal for Innovative Research in Science
and Technology, 2, 93-98.
[4]. Wilkinson, S. M. & Hiley, R. A. (2004, August). Collapse
Behaviour of High-Rise Buildings: A Response history
Approach. In 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
[5]. Wilkinson, S. M., & Hiley, R. A. (2006). A non-linear
response history model for the seismic analysis of high-rise
framed buildings. Computers & Structures, 84(5), 318-329.
[6]. Wilson, M., & Elavenil, S. (May 2015). Floor Response
Spectra Generation for Seismic Design of Buildings,
International Journal of Engineering Studies and Technical
Approach, 2(5), 1-7.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. S. Elavenil is working as a Professor in the Division of Structural Engineering, V.I.T. University, Vandalur, Chennai, Tamilnadu,
India. She has earned her Bachelor's Degree from Kamaraj University, Madurai and Master's Degree in Regional Engineering
College, Trichy, Bharathidasan University. She also achieved Ph.D Degree from Anna University, Chennai. She has 29 years of
teaching experience in various Engineering colleges and Universities in Tamilnadu. She has received the Best Teacher Award in
Periyar Maniammai Engineering College in Vallam, Best Journal paper award for the year 2006 in SRM University, Research
award in the year 2013, 2014, and 2015 in VIT University, Chennai Womens women award-2016 from AMN Global Groups,
Chennai, and Women of Distinction -2016 from VIWA2016. She had published 50 papers in National and International Journals.
She has participated and presented 65 papers in the National and International Conferences. She also guides her M.Tech and
Ph.D students in the area of Structural Dynamics and Concrete Structures. She has published books in the title Basics of Dynamics
and Aseismic Design of Structures, Prestressed Concrete and Design of Reinforced Concrete and Brick Masonry Structures with
A.R.S Publications, Chennai.

Sandra S. Fernandez is a PG student in School of Mechanical and Building Sciences at VIT University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

28 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 6 l

No. 4 l
December 2017 - February 2018